Bill Miller

I will attempt once more to reach some form of common sense that he might have ... Lets say you have so much time to get all the things done that you wanted to do for a particular day and by the end of the day you only got 80% accomplished - why was that? Could it be that you just didn't have enough time to work with?? I spent two days in the mountains with a film crew on a documentary and the final product used about 20 - 30 minutes of the two days they filmed me and a friend of mine. The documentary runs less than 50 minutes without commercials. Turner had to make separate mini documentaries - each running around an hour in length. In reference to Gordon, if Turner had allowed the other part to come in like with the second cop who really did nothing, then he may have had to remove other parts of Gordon's story to make room for it. What would you want to remove from the other interview - the part about the CIA guy running him out from behind the fence from where a shot would soon be said to be fired from? How about removing him seeing the Badge Man work that Jack and Gary did? No, the piece was on the Badge Man figure and someone standing near the walkway filming the motorcade as the President approached. It makes perfect sense IMO that Turner's main interest would lay with the cop that took the film from Gordon. Bill

I believe that I answered that question when I said it seemed obvious that Turner wanted to focus on the cop who took Arnold's film of the assassination. Mack said Turner didn't see the significance of the other cop. I have addressed that point several times by telling you that Arnold has only ever given one account and that it was Turner who cut the portion of Arnold's story out that told of the other cop being present. Having participated in a documentary .... this is what I learned that happens - The producer will talk to the witness as to why they feel they want them in the show. They go over the parts of the witness's story that they are trying to drive home to the public with the limited amount of running time that they have to work with. This is not a big mystery! The only mystery is why if you continually say that it was ARNOLD who told two versions of his story when you have been repeatedly told that ARNOLD told only one version of his story and TURNER edited part of it out - now that is a mystery to those who think rationally IMO. Sorry about that, Duncan. By the things you've said concerning the images - I just assumed that you were 'in the dark' when it came to understanding lighting and interpreting photographic record. Must have been my mistake. Bill

Duncan, I have been involved helping an attorney with cases and sat through several trials and a witness's accounting of what they saw is admissible and they do not need 10 people, 5 people, or even two people to supoport they were there or a photo of the event to be allowed to state what they saw. For you to say otherwise must be in regards to the courts in Scotland because that is not the way it works here. I am always amazed at how you cite things as if it were fact when it is soon seen that you had not a clue as to what you were talking about. Bill

Jack - you are dealing with people who had already come out denouncing Hoffman's story before ever even reading his book - you are wasting your time trying to educate those who didn't care to seek it before voicing their conclusions. I just read where one asked if the trains are moving .... well, Bell turned his film off and panned back to that area close to a minute after JFK left the plaza, so are the objects still there or have they moved on - not a tough call! Just during the 5 to 6 seconds those objects are seen in the Bell film through the tower poles - they move not a single foot from what I observed. Bill

There isn't two versions ... editing out part of an interview does not mean there are two versions told by witness. You live is a world of make believe IMO. If I copy your response and only paste half of it for proplr to read .... would this mean in your mind that you gave two different accounts or did Bill only show half of what you had said? Get the point! And if you wish to see what light clothing in shade looks like, then look at the man on the shelter steps as he peers into the RR yard in Towner #3. Bill

I do not know what Bugliosi's position is. From what I do know .... the difference between Bugliosis and Mack is that Vincent is telling a story from his interpretation of the evidence - Mack is offering first hand knowledge. Wow .... that's deep! Do you care to explain in more detail? Mack has said, "Regarding Gordon Arnold and his story of being challenged by TWO police officers, several of us heard that story directly from Arnold or the person who interviewed him: 1978 Howard Upchurch 1978 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News) 1979 Earl Golz (Dallas Morning News) 1981 Gary Mack (Coverups!) 1982 Henry Hurt (Reasonable Doubt) 1982 Jim Marrs (Crossfire) 1988 Nigel Turner I know every one of those folks, have read and/or heard their accounts directly, and all but Upchurch and Turner published the information at the time. I watched a preview of the Arnold segment of TMWKK in 1988 in England and immediately called Turner's attention to the missing second officer. He readily admitted that those references were removed during editing of the show. The reason was simple, he told me. The way Gordon told his story became confusing and hard for viewers to follow. Turner was unable to include that detail, he told me, without severely disrupting the flow of the narrative and having to add an explanation from the narrator. That's what happens when you deal with a filmmaker rather than a true journalist. It's unfortunate that an interesting part of the story was obscured by one who failed to recognize the significance of that second officer."

Did not Bowers say that the RR yard was full of cops right after the shooting and that he held the trains there until they were searched? Bowers said, "I held off the trains until they could be examined, and there was some transients taken on at least one train." Bill Miller

Who gives a rats behind what decision Turner made? Turner only had an hour to get all he wanted into the documentary. Yarborough was extensively interviewed and they only used a few sentences of what he gave them. Turner's focus in that piece concerned Arnold's film. I can see why Turner didn't waste time on the other cop. But like I said - who cares! The main point was and has been that Arnold did mention the two cops, thus the big mystery is solved and two individuals seen in dark clothing like cops would wear are seen at the tree in Towner #3, which is what Gordon said had happened. Bill

"Until it is seen it is only a rumour, as we are all only hearing about the uncut version through another rather than directly. What people say is important, but it's not always the truth." You should really look up the definitions to the words you use ... Rumor: A current story passing from one person to another, without any known authority for its truth; -- in this sense often personified. Now is it your contention that Gary Mack is not a known authority concerning the JFK assassination? Pretty high standard you've set for yourself in this particular situation. The "inadmissible" remark is odd IMO because Gary describing something from being there and getting it first hand would be admissible in any hearing. The MWKK part of Gordon's interview was to tell the public about the man who took his film .... not the totality of his entire experience. Bill

So you have gone to just saying what Gary says is hearsay, thus you cannot believe it ... to what Gary says cannot be believed. That rule can apply to anyone then, especially those who have a record of not citing the facts correctly. Gary has a lot riding on the line at the Museum when it comes to citing the record correctly. This is why people like Turner go directly to Gary when doing their documentaries. I'm willing to bet that Gary wouldn't tarnish his reputation over something like this. And seeing that Turner did edit his witnesses interviews, and Arnold had told Golz about two cops 10 years earlier ... I'm thinking you are just messing around. Duncan, I can tell you a lie and it not be hearsay .... you really should read the definition of the word so to know when and when not to use it. Bill

Miles makes a great point ... authors do tend to write what they think a witnessed said and not always what the witness actually said. One example - Posner's book had such occurrences show up in it. Bill Miller

Well, if you told me there was a firetruck in front of your house this morning only because you had heard a red truck with a ladder had been seen near there, then I would call that "supposition". If someone else said they witnessed a firetruck in front of your house, as well ... then I'd say that it is proof through collaboration. Bill

You say the silliest things so to not have to admit when you are wrong. First, you called it hearsay. Gary is not citing something that some second party told him about what a third party had said, but rather Gary's information was witnessed by Gary. What you are trying to imply is that someone can argue that just because we read on the forum about what a witnesse said - it is just hearsay without the witness being here to say it themselves. This would also fall under the line of thinking that even quoted statements said to have come from the 26 volumes is hearsay because unless someone produces the actual volume, then it is not proven - its a ridiculous concept IMO. I do agree with what you said about just because someone says something - it is not always the truth. A good example of this came when you called what Mack had said was nothing more than hearsay. Bill

Not relevant .... you use that word a lot, but seldom accurately. Holland told of seeing this guy before the shooting - Arnold met someone in the same area before the shooting who could have been this guy - what is the difference? Hoffman said he saw a man walk the fence line - Holland said he walked up and down the fence looking for more tracks or a shell casing - Arnold said he walked the fence line just prior to coming out on the walkway to film the President. It appears that the source of this information came from the witnesses, themselves. The cars may have been parked up near the fence, by apparently not so close as to not get between the car and the fence. Bill

Well Duncan, let us first get it straight as to what "hearsay" is .... Hearsay: # rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth # heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information" Gary is not telling me what someone else told him, but rather what he knows directly because he was there or had witnessed the entire interview. Gary also had interviewed Gordon personally. So I do not see this as being a matter involving hearsay. Bill

That's definitely the tail end of a train, i.e., a boxcar ... but is it moving or stationary? If it's moving, how long after the shooting was this frame taken, and how fast would a train have to have been moving to get to where it is in this image by then? I think Bowers said that he didn't allow any trains to be moving before the police had a chance to search them all. Bill

What, no three-engine locomotive with boxcars following? The question is then: if we are almost certain that there was no train on the overpass at the time, but J.W. Foster described it nevertheless, can we rely on any of what he said in No More Silence? We can't rely on his description of the train; we can't rely on his claim to having searched the cars in the railroad yard; why should we rely on the statement about a man approaching him and telling him about someone running away down the tracks? Let's not say that it's not true ... but is it reliable? If so, why? Well, have you not ever told of an event you saw only to find out that you mis-recalled a particular instance - Did that mean that everything else you remembered was unreliable? I will often try to look for things that might add support to someone's observations. Bill Miller

From memory - about 6' tall Ed was - give an inch or two possibly. I am 6'1" tall and I do not recall Ed being taller than I am.

I think if anyone pays attention to the fact that what has been suggested to be a possible train is no taller than the railings of the underpass .... the notion of that being a train soon dissipates. Bill

Your point is valid if the cop was in fact one of the bad guys. There is a possibility that someone else caused the film to vanish and the initial cop would never be the wiser. Bill

Yes ... we will call Turner and tell him that Duncan needs to see the entire interview. (sigh~) As I recall, Mack said it was in the unedited interview, thus I have no reason to doubt Gary. I also believe the two cops were mentioned to Earl Golz a decade earlier. Bill

Thanks Duncan. Interesting video, i had not seen that before. What a Strange story, C.I.A on the overpass, that a new one to me. I remain not convinced by this mans strange tale. Did not Holland tell of a man who he assumed was with law enforcement, but wasn't sure? Not far away was another incident involving someone who was showing SS credentials which were obviously falsified. It should also be said that Gordon may have misspoken when he said the man showed him CIA credentials because a decade earlier he had said this man showed him credentials leading Gordon to believe he was with the Secret Service. Arnold was not a public person and it is possible that doing an interview made him nervous, thus misspeaking is a possibility IMO. It is interesting though how he mentioned that he was able to walk the fence line ... that would be the same fence line nthat Hoffman said the Hat Man walked. Interesting indeed! Bill

I think you should have said that the 'edited' clip is at that link. Gary Mack said that Gordon did mention the two cops during the unedited interview. This information was posted previously. Bill

Arnold said it in the complete Turner interview, but it was edited out. This information came from Gary Mack. I also believe the 1978 Earl Golz interview mentioned two cops. It was at the end of November in Dallas - no assassination films or photos show any cops wearing short sleeves. In checking with Gary Mack, Gary doesn't know of any cops ever wearing short sleeve shirts as part of their uniform until recent years and in summer. Bill

I think that maybe there is some posible resolution to be had over the train moving. I am going from memory here, but didn't Bowers say that he had held up the trains while the President was passing through DP. Well, Bowers also said that he had lost track of the man in the dark clothing behind the fence following the shooting because he had to deal with the trains or words pertaining to his work. So yes, at some point there was a train being allowed to start moving again, but it must have taken several minutes because the assassination films do not seem to reflect a train moving during the first minute or so following the assassination. So is it not possible that Foster just got a little mixed up about the timing of the train starting to move through the area? Bill